Racial seperation in the United States

[SUBMAN1]

Can you believe this? You know if they had white people centered web browsers, it would be called racist. If they had white people television (They have BET or black entertainment television over here) it would be called racist.

This web browser is a racist web browser.

the Blackbird Web browser

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465808,00.html

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This belongs in this thread:

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/LARGE_word.jpg

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Subman, I agree with you.

[Dowly]

Subman's right.

I've seen and heard quite a few things said by an invidual of an "non-white race" that would be considered as racism if a white invidual would say it. :nope:

[Tchocky]

Um, this is racist in the same way that Vogue is sexist.

[SteamWake]

Meh no one is going to buy that anyhow.

[AVGWarhawk]

This as well as Jet magazine, BET and others like it do not bother me. In the large scheme of things, this will become a broken link before long. Sometimes I just think things like this perpetuate inequality. Sometimes I think things like this are just a place for people to go and see things that interest them.

[XabbaRus]

I don't see the big deal. It's not like the thing will take off and reading the reaction from Black people it is more offensive to them..

Personally if I was black I'd find the picture of the word thing offensive.

[Digital_Trucker]

Doesn't look like it's being very well received by its intended audience, judging by the article. Will probably fade away as fast as the rainbow colored slinky.

[Letum]

It is probably just an advertising gimic. Or perhaps some black people feel that their
interests, culture, etc are not well represented online. It wouldn't surprise me if there
is an unconscious cultural bias online. Everyone likes media they can relate to. I don't
think it would be considered racist to have a white culture browser, there just isn't
any need as there is hardly a lack of white, western media. Browsers are ten a penny
these days and the vast majority are flops.

[conus00]

It's called "reversed racism"...

[Wolfehunter]

:-?I have one thing to say.... Who cares?:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Um, this is racist in the same way that Vogue is sexist.
No, it's not done for racist reasons. But the others are right - if something like this was started by a white person, others would indeed condemn it as just that.

I used to know a prominent woman doctor who, when asked to become a member of the National Orginazation of Women, replied "No, thanks. I don't belong to sexist groups." And she was right, but you'll never get most of the people who start these things to see it that way.

[Letum]

if something like this was started by a white person, others would indeed condemn it as just that. [racist]
Really?
Who are these 'others'?
Would anyone here condemn a white culture centric browser if a group of white people
felt under represented by the media online they found through a default browser?

For example, lets say you where part of the minority of white people who only
spoke a Congo-Kordofanian language. You may want a browser that turns up articles
and websites more relevant to you (you as a member of the white minority, largely ignored
by the media you can readily assess) when you search in Congo-Kordofanian, as Congo-
Kordofanian web searches are bound to have a black cultural bias.


Granted, it might be frowned upon if you wanted a browser to provide more coverage
of your ethnicity/culture when most of the media available for you is already quite
heavily biased to provide for your ethnicity/culture in the first place.

[Hylander_1314]

This is how screwy it is, in America, only whites can be racists.(the media grabs anything like this, and plasters it all over the papers, tv, and radio, and there are marches against it) If any other racial demagraphic does it, it's called resistance to white supremacy. :roll: No media coverage, or very little. And then it is so short and mild that no one notices it.

It's really sad. :nope:

[caspofungin]

I'm with Letum.

Another aspect is, the browser isn't exclusive. i.e. it may be targetted at black people, but there's nothing to stop a white or hispanic or arab or whatever person using it.

Also, @Subman1 and Hylander, did you actually read the article? I mean the bits where this the browser was criticized by --gasp-- black people? No media coverage? Maybe it's because you aren't looking?

Here, I'll post the comments, save you the effort...

"Wait, why do I need a special Web browser? Last time I checked, I don't physically browse the Internet any different than anyone else."


"The way this browser is marketed, the language, and the very idea that Black people somehow need a different piece of software to deal with the Internet all rubs me the wrong way."

"I am offended at this. As a Black man in this country I don't need a browser to help my kids find culturally relevant material... it's the damn WORLD WIDE WEB... not the Black Web, or White Web or Yellow Web. ... It's s--- like this that burns me up. I need to tell my wife (who is Hispanic) that the[y] need the BlackBean browser for the Hispanic community."

And it's pretty funny that you bitch about a browser being racist then post a pic that, although I find it amusing, I'm sure some people wouldn't be too happy about.

[Task Force]

:nope: As said before.... If it had been a white web browser, the NACCP would jump right on it.:shifty: Its the same way in the school systems around here. If a black child calls me a honkey, cracker, white boy they dont get in trouble, but I call them the forbidden N word. I get in a h*** of a lot of trouble. All in all, its just a way to pump more money out of people who are stupid enought to buy something they dont need.

[Frame57]

BET is great! The women are always jigglin....:up:

[SteamWake]

BET is great! The women are always jigglin....:up:

Yea... well thats sort of the problem isint it :hmm:

[sunvalleyslim]

We'll be talking about this into the next century.......There will always be bias out there. Just depends on which group you belong to.............

[Task Force]

I wonder what would happen if it had of been a web browser for white people.:hmm: (and im not trying to be raceist or start anything.)

[August]

With a black president I think reverse racism will be something that is tolerated less and less in our society.

[subchaser12]

With a black president I think reverse racism will be something that is tolerated less and less in our society.

Well what we can do is claim we have reached the racial harmony holy land. Who can claim they are a victim now. We can just say "we got a black president, stop whining". Let' use Obama as an excuse to take away African American victim status. The playing field is now even.

[bradclark1]

White racists totally forget that most of the things they see as "universal" are actually made by and for white people, and then they cry murder when something by and for black (or whatever) people is created.
I think by and for people would cover most things. If you have to insert a color guess what you are?

[UnderseaLcpl]

With a black president I think reverse racism will be something that is tolerated less and less in our society.

Well what we can do is claim we have reached the racial harmony holy land. Who can claim they are a victim now. We can just say "we got a black president, stop whining". Let' use Obama as an excuse to take away African American victim status. The playing field is now even.

Except that it isn't, and it never will be, at least for the forseeable future. Genes make sure that will be the case, and there isn't a thing, besides eugenics, that we can do about it, and that is even more unacceptable.

IMO, the biggest problem with any kind of ism in a discriminatory sense, comes from people confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Even then, equality of opportunity is somewhat tenuous because while all men (in the sense of mankind) may be created equal in terms of rights, they are not all equal in ability and education.



What I'm about to say may seem a bit extreme, but imo, it's true. We, mankind, as advanced as we are in many respects, are still no more advanced than any other animal when it comes to our genes. Whether we admit it or not, we are locked in a genetic war that has been going on since the first organic molecules began competing for resources. All life on earth is, no matter how outwardly peaceful it may seem at times.

Genes compete only for survival and reproduction. The human body is a mechanism to facilitate this. It, and the brain that makes it so powerful, were created for the sole purpose of replicating genetic information in the fashion that gives the best chance of further survival.

The gene is a selfish and ruthless thing. Even within our own bodies they compete for resources, leading to a host of genetic disorders and other phenomena. For those of you that are male, the only reason you are so is because a tiny Y-chromosome successfully hid from larger, predatory X-chromosomes that would have destroyed it. Much of the DNA that makes us who we are isn't even our own. It is "junk DNA" that owes its' exsistence to viruses that managed to infiltrate the human genome for selfish purpose of its' own reproduction.

Racism is simply a level of this type of competition manifesting itself on a macrosocial scale. No, I'm not sure that's really a word.:D

Whenever sustinence, space, social privledge, mating rights, or any other resource becomes scarce, the gene manifests itself on a scale that we can see. The first level is that of the social group. We identify with with whatever larger community we have been socialized by and function within, in most cases.

The largest level of this is humanity as a whole, but this is a weak association. It would be a lot stronger if we were competing with another sentient species, but we aren't. Next, people subdivide into smaller social groups like nations and states. Generally speaking, people are protective of their cultural identities, which are often formalized by some kind of artificial boundary. Of course there are exceptions, which have little prospect of genetic success in such a group. Traitors are reviled and harshly punished in most states for this reason. The gene does not like threats to its' survival, and threats to the social structure fall within that category. Humans are social animals, and reproducing successfully usually means maintaining some sort of social functionality to be seen as a viable partner.

In addition to a social identity, humans often form a genetic identity as well. This is where racism and other associated forms of bigotry come in. For those who may not be familiar with the term, the word "phenotype" refers to physical manifestations of genetic traits. For such a simple thing, the implications are amazingly complex and fascinating. Many studies done on seemingly inexplicable phenomena concerning human sex pheremones have shown that the determining factor in most gender attraction is in fact the result of the brain deciphering the phenotype of the stimulus subject. Amazing stuff, really, and still the subject of much debate, but, I digress.

Some geneticists (and drooling ehtusiasts of the field, like myself) believe that the brain is capable of examining a person's appearance and determining genetic compatability for the purposes of reproduction. This isn't as complex a task as it might seem. Studies in human attractiveness using computer-generated faces indicate that people are most attracted to a member of the opposite gender that posseses the most moderate features, those the closest to the societal mean. The interesting thing is how much variance there is in racial and cultural interpretations of what the "mean" is. The gene is at work here, calculating which partner is most likely to produce offspring that look the most like everyone else in the available gene pool. Where a system of sexual reproduction can't really produce a "clone" of the original, the gene looks for that which is most like itself. Another interesting finding is that people with some exaggerated features often selected faces with opposite traits, which would be the most likely to produce an offspring that fits into the mean, and thus, is more likely to reproduce successfully. A whole host of other interesting datum can be found in these studies, which I will post, should anyone be interested, once I find the books and their accompanying bibliographies that I gleaned them from. Beauty is not only skin-deep, it would seem:D

Racism, it would seem, is often the product of genetic impulses concerning reproduction and competition for the same from what is seen as an incompatible organsim. In the gene's view, a person of markedly different physical structure is of significantly less worth than a person who is a desireable mate, or is capable of producing a desireable mate for the organism or the offspring of the same. Since they are not of much reproductive worth, the gene has no desire to associate. They are competition for resources. The most desireable outcome is their from the resource pool, and thus the gene pool. Now assume for a moment that the genes of the individual described are in the genetic majority. Normally, one would assume that the target of this person's racist disdain would have similar feeling about the majority individual. Not neccesarily so. Oftentimes, people in a minority find members of the majority more attractive, provided they are of the opposite gender, while viewing members of the same sex as a threat. The gene is at work again. To gain access to the greatest number of viable mates, the gene must become like the majority population. Obviously, the hostile genetic majority is not in favor of this, and the only solution lies in the gene making itself the only viable choice. On the most primitive level, as is evident in lower primates, the solution is to kill the competitors. Humans, while not above this method, often work within their social systems to obtain the same result, since killing is a social taboo, most of the time. Racism manifests itself in this way, through legislative action or demonstrations or simple personal communication in most cases, and by murder, hate organizations, and even war in the most extreme circumstances.

If you didn't know or haven't guessed by now, socialization plays an important part in genetics, and therefore, racism. This explains phenomena like reverse racism and self-hatred (in the racial sense) quite easily. The gene seeks only to reproduce in the most successful means possible, but it also wishes to eliminate competition. It cannot vary much from this doctrine, or else it wouldn't be around, if you believe in Darwinist theories, which I do. It also helps explain why males have more tendency to be rascist than females do, except in locations where minorities are present. Females have to select the best mate they can because they really only get one chance to pick the right one, in a genetic sense. Males, obviously, are designed to produce the greatest number of offspring possible, so for their genes, access to the greatest number of mates is the primary concern.

By this point, if you're still reading, you either agree or or asking how genes explain the acts of beneficience and tolerance that exsist, all too rarely, in today's world. I have a few answers, and I'm sure you'll hate at least one of them;

1) Humans are social machines. Acts of tolerance and kindness tend to increase one's value as a mate, because other selfish genetic machines are less likely to kill them for being a threat or a drain on resources. Males in particular, who are less choosy about the quality of their (likey multitudinous) mates, gain the additional benefit of being more appealing to more individuals.
In today's world, where killing isn't really an option because other selfish genetic machines that far outnumber the killer are likely to kill them, the same mechanism is present in more gentle but no less malicious forms of "social neutralization"

2) There are truly selfless people who do things even when they gain no social benefit. Many times, these individuals only do so because they believe that they will be rewarded by a higher power. This concept manifests itself in many ways, from the unknown martyr to the anonymous donor. The gene is still at work here, but the brain has been convinced that a greater benefit is being gained. Genes like benefit, and survivability, hence the "paradise or damnation" theme that certain major religions follow.

Before I recieve any applause from atheists or condemnation from the faithful, I will make clear that I am a religious person. If you're an atheist you might as well skip to the next paragraph, unless you want to debate me on what I'm about to say, which is perfectly acceptable. One may ask how I can reconcile my cycnical views of humans being the playthings of microscopic tyrants with any form of religion. After all, I view humans as little more than biological machines. I don't believe in creationism, in the typical sense, and I don't interpret the Bible very literally. However, I am a Christian, and I endeavor to be a good Christian through acts, although I must admit that I do so much less often than I should, but I am a sinner and I have faltered many times. Personally, I find the miracles that surround us every day in the form of the impossibly complex system of life on this planet much moredivine than the idea that Our Lord "magicked" the world into exsistence in seven days. Six, if you want to get technical, but whatever, I'm no bible scholar. However, the Bible does provide many valuable lessons in the Old Testament for the survival of mankind. In the New Testament, it provides valuable lessons for the benefit of mankind in a more advanced society. I believe that within those books lies the key to a society that is free of war and want and evil. The key, IMO, is forgiveness, free will, and universal love of our Savior. While genes provide a means create and sustain life, as the Old Testament does, the New Testament shows the path to Paradise on Earth by following the teaching of Jesus.
Beyond that, I don't have many conclusions, and of course, even these may be erroneous. What I see, when I think of God, is a being so powerful and wise, that He could devise a system that is 100% guarenteed to create order in a universe of entropy and chaos. Perfect order, is made possible by the adaptability of the gene and that will be created by His will, performed by His children, on Earth. I see the universe as a machine, difficult to understand, but eloquently simple by design, that has only one purpose and inevitable result. The creation of God's Kingdom, hence, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. If God is anything, he is order. Perfect Order, who created mankind in His image. We aren't there yet, not by a longshot, but we will be someday.


All religous chitchat aside, and back to the OT, rascism reallly isn't that difficult to understand, imo, and it is guaranteed to last for the time being. I have no doubt that when it goes it will be replaced by another form of bigotry as genes seek a new group of non-viable parts to eliminate. It is no surprise that the most "ist" members of all our communities are generally amongst the most criticized and disdained. Such beleifs are rapidly becoming unacceptable in modern nations and so, belong only to those broken organic machines that lack the comprehension to see beyond their basic genetic programming. Evolution will take its' toll on them, in due time, as the communities that accept them become smaller and smaller. Of course, it will likely be replaced by narrower forms of discrimination.

IMO, not everything has to be complex. Things like why the opposite sex is so hard to understand, why people hate, why they do heinous things, what makes those things heinous, why they fight and love and die and live is explainable, quite easily, by considering the perspective of the gene. So small, yet it rules us all:D

[Digital_Trucker]

White racists totally forget that most of the things they see as "universal" are actually made by and for white people,

You have some statistics to back that up?

[fatty]

White racists totally forget that most of the things they see as "universal" are actually made by and for white people, and then they cry murder when something by and for black (or whatever) people is created.

This.

It's the same reason that white pride or a white history month would be inappropriate; because we've been living in a white millennium. Nobody will venture to call their browser 'Whitebird' but the truth is that, as you note, every other internet browser is being developed by large white majorities, and being used by large white majorities to access content created by large white majorities.

[Letum]

:rotfl:
Thats wonderful Mik!
genuine LOLs.

[Thomen]

LOL, do you really need statistic to show you the obvious ? :rotfl:

10 seconds google (!) search:

Google team
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/295938637_e04841053f.jpg

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/google_AU_team-730285.gif

Microsoft MSN search team
http://www.richest-now.com/photos/bill-gates-microsoft-photo.gif

Mozilla/Firefox team
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1253/862499901_2e78c79b79.jpg?v=0

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/90794_mozilla_team_use.jpg


What are you trying to prove? That there are more Asians/Indians in the pictures then Black people? Or, depending on the company that whites are the minority?

[Frame57]

BET is great! The women are always jigglin....:up:

Yea... well thats sort of the problem isint it :hmm:Since when are jiggly women are a problem...? I would have an issue with all the rappers who talk about killing people and cops, but the beeatches have to stay!:yep:

[SteamWake]

but the beeatches have to stay!:yep:

Yea see, you kind of make my case.

Ill sum it up for you to make it easy.

A lack of respect.

[VipertheSniper]

:nope: As said before.... If it had been a white web browser, the NACCP would jump right on it.:shifty: Its the same way in the school systems around here. If a black child calls me a honkey, cracker, white boy they dont get in trouble, but I call them the forbidden N word. I get in a h*** of a lot of trouble. All in all, its just a way to pump more money out of people who are stupid enought to buy something they dont need.

Why don't you just call him for what he is, and with that I mean not the N word, but a racist? Might light up a light somewhere up there with him.

What's "reverse" racism btw? I mean either you're a racist or you're not, so reverse racism would be not being racist or what? I don't know, and I'll probably make a fool of myself now, but it seems to me people who use this term somehow seem to think only white people can be racist (at least judging by the way it was used here) or that black people can't be just called racist, but because whites feel it's somehow "payback" it's reverse racism when black people are racist? I know it's just semantics but really calling something "reverse racism" is nonsensical. Sounds like someone trying to be politcal correct, but having not quite grasped the concept of PC a.k.a. PC gone mad.

[VipertheSniper]

What are you trying to prove? That there are more Asians/Indians in the pictures then Black people? Or, depending on the company that whites are the minority?

I think you should read the post above the one you quoted for starters. That's what he was trying to prove.

[Sailor Steve]

if something like this was started by a white person, others would indeed condemn it as just that. [racist]
Really?
Who are these 'others'?
I won't quote your whole post as it's long, but I will address it. The first problem is, you don't live in America. I'm not dismissing you with that, I'm just trying to say that some things are actually nation-centric, and we have to deal with that. As I pointed out in my story about the woman doctor, if we created a National Orginization of Men, there would be a huge outcry. If there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People, the whole country would explode.

Fatty is right: we have been living in a white millenium, or in our country at least a white couple of centuries. I'm all for 'Colored', Women's and Gay organizations. Everybody needs a place where he or she feels welcome. But the fact remains that things are out-of-balance when one group feels that they can't be an '-ist' because of who they are, and another group can't express themselves without becoming an '-ist' in the eyes of everybody else.

[Letum]

As I pointed out in my story about the woman doctor, if we created a National Orginization of Men, there would be a huge outcry. If there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People, the whole country would explode.

the national association of white people would be perfectly acceptable in a country
where white people where in a minority.
No one accuses the white peoples association of Chad of being racist!

[Sailor Steve]

I think that's an obfuscation, but you could be right, so unlike some I won't argue with it. But I think the point still stands: some get away with what others can't, and while I couldn't care less about 'white' anything, we still have the problem that the divide is kept open partly by people who claim they're trying to close it.

[Letum]

I think that's an obfuscation, but you could be right, so unlike some I won't argue with it. But I think the point still stands: some get away with what others can't, and while I couldn't care less about 'white' anything, we still have the problem that the divide is kept open partly by people who claim they're trying to close it.


Equality isn't where everyone can justly do what everyone else can do, even if their
circumstances are very different.
Even so, it is certainly true that, whether justly of unjustly so, doing something that
would be morally questionable if someone in different circumstances did the same isn't
going to promote unity.

[Digital_Trucker]

LOL, do you really need statistic to show you the obvious ? :rotfl:


No, I don't, but those photos aren't exactly proof of anything except that you can't tell the racial backgrounds of people strictly from their appearance in a photo.

[Thomen]

What are you trying to prove? That there are more Asians/Indians in the pictures then Black people? Or, depending on the company that whites are the minority?
I think you should read the post above the one you quoted for starters. That's what he was trying to prove.
You mean this one?

You have some statistics to back that up?
or this one?

White racists totally forget that most of the things they see as "universal" are actually made by and for white people, and then they cry murder when something by and for black (or whatever) people is created.

You post is rather inconclusive, for starters.
That's like saying yes when asked if you want sugar or salt on your grits.

I m sure all the Asians in the pictures will be thrilled to know that they just lost their ethnic background. ;)

[bradclark1]

the national association of white people would be perfectly acceptable in a country
where white people where in a minority.

Oh I don't know. Try that in South Africa.:hmm:

[August]

Calling it a "white millennium" serves no other purpose than to accentuate and perpetuate racial separatism. If man is ever going to get beyond making social divisions based upon race we must stop using such terms.